from the the-end-of-fixed-fixes? dept

Well, this is (potentially) good news. New York is going forward with the first "right to repair" bill in the nation, as pointed out on Twitter by Amanda Levendowski. The bill will allow constituents to bypass manufacturer-authorized dealers/repair centers and use smaller (and cheaper) repair outlets. Or, if neither seems within the price range, they're more than welcome to perform these repairs -- using previously-hidden manufacturer specs and instructions -- themselves.

Perhaps the best thing about the bill (if it passes with as few loopholes as possible) is that it will eliminate the sort of ridiculousness that has been the end result of this tight grip on repair "permission." Like Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raiding repair shops for using aftermarket products. Or teens being sued by multi-billion dollar companies for doing the same. Or local governments requiring unrelated licenses to be obtained before a person can start offering repairs.

Here's what's being authorized before the exceptions kick in. (ALL CAPS in the original.)

MANUFACTURERS OF DIGITAL ELECTRONIC PARTS AND MACHINES SOLD OR USED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK SHALL:

I. MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY INDEPENDENT REPAIR FACILITIES OR OTHER OWNERS OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY SUCH MANUFACTURER DIAGNOSTIC AND REPAIR INFORMATION, INCLUDING REPAIR TECHNICAL UPDATES, UPDATES AND CORRECTIONS TO FIRMWARE, AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION, IN THE SAME MANNER SUCH MANUFACTURER MAKES AVAILABLE TO ITS AUTHORIZED REPAIR CHANNEL. EACH MANUFACTURER SHALL PROVIDE ACCESS TO SUCH MANUFACTURER'S DIAGNOSTIC AND REPAIR INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR PURCHASE BY OWNERS AND INDEPENDENT REPAIR FACILITIES UPON FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS; AND

II. MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY THE PRODUCT OWNER, OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUCH SERVICE PARTS, INCLUSIVE OF ANY UPDATES TO THE FIRMWARE OF THE PARTS, FOR PURCHASE UPON FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS…

EACH MANUFACTURER OF DIGITAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS SOLD OR USED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY OWNERS AND INDEPENDENT REPAIR FACILITIES ALL DIAGNOSTIC REPAIR TOOLS INCORPORATING THE SAME DIAGNOSTIC, REPAIR AND REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES THAT SUCH MANUFACTURER MAKES AVAILABLE TO ITS OWN REPAIR OR ENGINEERING STAFF OR ANY AUTHORIZED REPAIR CHANNELS. EACH MANUFACTURER SHALL OFFER SUCH TOOLS FOR SALE TO OWNERS AND TO INDEPENDENT REPAIR FACILITIES UPON FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS.

That's the good part. But there are potential loopholes in the bill already, including a major exception for one of the most tightlipped industries: auto manufacturers.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS OR MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION.

If any industry needs to be covered under a "right to repair," it's the auto industry, which has continually abusedintellectual property laws to keep the general public from diagnosing their own vehicles in order to perform their own repairs.

There's other potential bad news in there as well.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A MANUFACTURER TO DIVULGE A TRADE SECRET.

Yeah. Guess what's going to start being declared "trade secrets?" Probably almost everything the bill orders manufacturers to make available to the public. Even if this bill passes, there's going to be a ton of litigation over what does and does not define a "trade secret." In the meantime, the public will be no better off than they were before the bill's passage.

And there's this exception, which would seem to pick up whatever slack "trade secrets" can't.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE MANUFACTURERS OR AUTHORIZED REPAIR PROVIDERS TO PROVIDE AN OWNER OR INDEPENDENT REPAIR PROVIDER ACCESS TO NON-DIAGNOSTIC AND REPAIR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A MANUFACTURER TO AN AUTHORIZED REPAIR PROVIDER PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF AN AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT.

"Non-diagnostic" could become the new "diagnostic." And the use of the word "and" seems to make "repair information" off-limits if any agreements are already in place with authorized dealers and repair shops.

There's also a good chance the bill's "fair and reasonable terms" will be construed as permission to price independent repair shops and the general public out of the market. Legislators obviously can't set base prices (or even determine a fair market price -- that information is kept under wraps as well), so the suggestion of a "fair" price is open to advantageous interpretation. There's an attempt to set some limits in the bill's definitions, with the most significant one being "THE ABILITY OF AFTERMARKET TECHNICIANS OR SHOPS TO AFFORD THE INFORMATION," but that, again, is going to generate a lot of friction (possibly of the litigious variety) when manfacturers and the rest of the public repeatedly fail to agree on the definition of "affordable."

Still, it's more than most governments are willing to attempt. Massachusetts passed one in 2013 -- one that targeted auto manufacturers and dealers. It met with the usual resistance from the auto industry (both ends) but gathered 86% of the public's votes, clearly signaling unhappiness with the automakers' closed systems. A federal "right to repair" law has been mooted several times, but has never gained significant traction.

If this bill is going to succeed as a law, legislators need to do some loophole stitching pre-passage, and regulators will need to keep a very close eye on reticent manufacturers after it becomes law.

from the mama-government dept

The nanny-state arms race marches on, apparently. Whereas the previous intersection of overbearing government and technology has resulted in politicians attempting to ban the use of headphones while walking across the street, governments introducing all manner of silly policies in the name of "protecting the children", and even municipalities attempting to run psy-ops on citizens to keep them from smoking, Taiwan appears to be taking an even more direct approach with plans to fine the parents of children the government has deemed spend too much time with electronics.

Under rules passed last Friday by Taiwanese politicians, children under the age of two should be completely banned from using electronic devices, Xinhua, China's official news agency reported. Meanwhile under-18s should not be allowed to "constantly use electronic products for a period of time that is not reasonable". It means electronic products are now listed alongside cigarettes and alcohol as potentially dangerous vices.

And you can see their point, assuming you're a crazy person. Because electronics are tools primarily of communication and productivity, even if they're also used for entertainment, and government intrusion on young people's ability to communicate, learn, and be entertained is so far removed from alcohol and tobacco that one wonders how the argument was made with a straight face to begin with. The prospective "too much time" part of this legal equation has yet to be ironed out, but the brainchild for the law is, shall we say, more than slightly aggressive on the topic.

The new regulation is the brainchild of Lu Shiow-yen, a Taiwanese member of parliament who said his intention was to protect young people by stopping them using electronic devices for more than 30 minutes at a time. Parents who break the rules can be hit with fines of up to about £1,000 although it remains unclear how authorities will determine what amount of time is unreasonable.

There's a million reasons why this is stupid, but I'll boil it down to one specific reason: baseball. Baseball is huge in Taiwan. Baseball is enjoyed primarily on television and streaming electronic devices. And baseball, for all its wonderful aspects, takes roughly as much time as it takes for a mountain to form in the Nebraska prairie. Thirty-minute stretches of time as a limit effectively outlaws youngsters watching baseball. Put in that context, and really any other context, these sorts of artificial limitations on the electronics that dominate our lives (in a good way) are ludicrous.

Expect either the backlash here to be huge, or the law to go largely ignored. Either way, this is a political non-starter.

from the new-searches-and-screenings-because-reasons dept

The Department of Homeland Security still has the power to control the world's airports, or at least those of our Five Eyes' spying allies. New DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson issued the following statement on July 2nd.

DHS continually assesses the global threat environment and reevaluates the measures we take to promote aviation security. As part of this ongoing process, I have directed TSA to implement enhanced security measures in the coming days at certain overseas airports with direct flights to the United States. We will work to ensure these necessary steps pose as few disruptions to travelers as possible. We are sharing recent and relevant information with our foreign allies and are consulting the aviation industry. These communications are an important part of our commitment to providing our security partners with situational awareness about the current environment and protecting the traveling public. Aviation security includes a number of measures, both seen and unseen, informed by an evolving environment. As always, we will continue to adjust security measures to promote aviation security without unnecessary disruptions to the traveling public.

The move follows a request from the US that "certain overseas airports" implement enhanced security measures. The UK government has also revised its rules to state that if a "device doesn't switch on, you won't be allowed to bring it on to the aircraft".

Anyone who has absentmindedly allowed a battery to discharge will still have several options, according to Heathrow officials. They can use airport "charging points" to bring their devices back to life or stash them in stowed luggage. They can also mail the device to themselves if they don't mind being separated for a little extra time. This all sounds very accommodating, but simply having a drained device can place you under suspicion.

Affected passengers have been told they may also have to undergo extra screening measures.

There also seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the DHS and the affected airports as to which devices are subject to the new "charged and operable" standard. The TSA says "some devices, including mobile phones," but fails to be any more specific, exactly the sort of vague, malleable direction the TSA is fond of. Heathrow's list of electronics includes hair dryers, electric shavers, cameras and mp3 players and the wording below the list says nothing more than "make sure your electronic devices are charged before you travel."

This vagueness from everyone involved isn't a good sign. Having to present devices not normally inspected by security personnel and power them up lends itself to "incidental" device searches. The heightened suspicion of devices in general doesn't help. And wherever this "credible threat" the DHS cites in support of this move actually originates, it's apparently hoped that it will route itself through Germany, France or the UK. At this point, no other countries offering direct flights to the US have agreed to the additional security measures.

from the the-FAA-speaks-'government;'-it'll-understand-being-'legislated dept

Way back in March, the FAA stated that it was taking a "fresh look" at Kindles and tablet computers, possibly moving towards approving these devices for use during takeoff and landing. Nine months later, perhaps feeling the "fresh look" was now a bit past "stale," FCC chief Julius Genachowski politely but pointedly asked the FAA to just get on with it already.

It is my hope that the FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously as possible to implement common sense changes to today's restrictive regulations on in-flight use of PEDs that better reflect new technologies and the changing role these devices play in Americans' daily lives. While the agency can and should use existing authorities to allow for the broader use of PEDs, I am prepared to pursue legislative solutions should progress be made too slowly.

In October, after months of pressure from the public and the news media, the F.A.A. finally said it would begin a review of its policies on electronic devices in all phases of flight, including takeoff and landing. But the agency does not have a set time frame for announcing its findings.

An F.A.A. spokeswoman told me last week that the agency was preparing to move to the next phase of its work in this area, and would appoint members to a rule-making committee that will begin meeting in January.

So, it's a start. Nearly a year past the day it promised to "rethink" the personal electronic device issue, the FAA's finally going to begin selecting candidates for its rule-making committee. Presumably, the committee will be finalized at some point within the next six months, at which point the rule-making can actually begin. Judging by the past year's "effort," I would imagine we'll be writing 2014 on our checks before any proposed changes are given a timescale for potential rollout.

In the process of fending off a growing army of irritated fliers, FCC chairmen and legislators, the FAA has conjured up every bit of electro-hysteria in its arsenal to keep fliers sitting upright and at full attention any time the plane goes below the magical 10,000-ft. cutoff.

As Bilton states, arguing with the FAA is like arguing with a stubborn teenager. Despite its inability to provide any evidence to back up its stance on electronic devices, the FAA continues to stick to its increasingly dubious talking points.

A year ago, when I first asked Les Dorr, a spokesman for the F.A.A., why the rule existed, he said the agency was being cautious because there was no proof that device use was completely safe. He also said it was because passengers needed to pay attention during takeoff.

This last statement is odd. I understand that safety instructions are being handed out during the "takeoff experience," but once that's over (or you've seen it more than a couple of times), it would seem passengers should be able to return to whatever they were doing before the hand signals began. Furthermore, no other form of mass transportation demands that its passengers "pay attention" during departure. And, as Bilton points out, people without electronic devices aren't being forced to "pay attention."

When I asked why I can read a printed book but not a digital one, the agency changed its reasoning. I was told by another F.A.A. representative that it was because an iPad or Kindle could put out enough electromagnetic emissions to disrupt the flight.

Which is ridiculous, considering...

Yet a few weeks later, the F.A.A. proudly announced that pilots could now use iPads in the cockpit instead of paper flight manuals.

So, iPads in the cockpit: OK. iPads in the fuselage: Verboten. There's an excuse behind that "reasoning" as well.

“Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,” explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. “If it added up like that, people wouldn’t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.”

Bill Ruck, principal engineer at CSI Telecommunications, a firm that does radio communications engineering, added: “Saying that 100 devices is 100 times worse is factually incorrect. Noise from these devices increases less and less as you add more.”

EMT Labs found that a Kindle puts out less than 30 microvolts per meter in use (0.00003 volts), while any airliner that is approved for flight must be able to withstand up to 100 volts per meter. So, the FAA is concerned that a device that puts out emissions at a level that could be generously termed a rounding error will brick the plane during takeoffs and landing.

Then there's the ever-popular "iPad becomes deadly projectile" argument, which finds that airborne rounded corners are more dangerous than hardcover books moving at the same speed. This argument is so weak it's a wonder the sentence didn't collapse on itself the moment it was first uttered.

But the most interesting point of Bilton's piece is the fact that these rules, backed by little more than "because we said so" rationalization, generate the irrational fear that a single person's electronic device could bring the whole plane down. This often results in overreaction.

In September, a passenger was arrested in El Paso after refusing to turn off his cellphone as the plane was landing. In October, a man in Chicago was arrested because he used his iPad during takeoff. In November, half a dozen police cars raced across the tarmac at La Guardia Airport in New York, surrounding a plane as if there were a terrorist on board. They arrested a 30-year-old man who had also refused to turn off his phone while on the runway.

Basing a zero-tolerance policy on irrational fear leads to other problems as well, especially if those involved have "bought in" to the FAA party line.

In 2010, a 68-year-old man punched a teenager because he didn’t turn off his phone. Lt. Kent Lipple of the Boise Police Department in Idaho, who arrested the puncher, said the man “felt he was protecting the entire plane and its occupants.”

These sorts of incidents are bound to become more common the longer the FAA stalls on adjusting its personal electronic device rules. Device usage is growing, and evidence is mounting that the FAA's claims don't hold water. More and more passengers will test the limits of these rules because they find them ridiculous.

Underneath it all, it seems the only thing holding back the FAA's clearance of these devices is its own fear. Since it will never be 100% sure that these devices won't interfere with critical systems, it's going to continue to play it super-safe, since the last thing it wants on its hands is a plane crash occurring shortly after loosening these restrictions. It's the same fear that keeps the TSA from scaling back its efforts. If something bad happens, the rules shouldn't have been changed. If nothing bad happens, it's because the rules are in place. It's fear-based inertia and if any movement occurs, it's usually in the harsher, stricter direction.

from the about-time dept

It's been pretty clear for quite some time that there's no real safety reason why electronics are barred during takeoff and landing on airplanes. Furthermore, there's no legitimate technological reason for not allowing mobile phones on planes either -- that one's more just about keeping other passengers from going into a rage at having to hear others' half-conversations. However, it seems that more and more people are getting annoyed that they can't use their snazzy new ebooks or tablet computers (not just iPads, mind you) on airplane take-off and landings. Nick Bilton, over at the NY Times, asked the FAA what was up with that, and they admitted that they're taking "a fresh look" at those devices and whether or not they should be allowed to be used at those times. Of course, as he notes, this might just lead to a bunch of bureaucratic red tape -- including every possible device having to go through significant testing:

Abby Lunardini, vice president of corporate communications at Virgin America, explained that the current guidelines require that an airline must test each version of a single device before it can be approved by the F.A.A. For example, if the airline wanted to get approval for the iPad, it would have to test the first iPad, iPad 2 and the new iPad, each on a separate flight, with no passengers on the plane.

It would have to do the same for every version of the Kindle. It would have to do it for every different model of plane in its fleet. And American, JetBlue, United, Air Wisconsin, etc., would have to do the same thing. (No wonder the F.A.A. is keeping smartphones off the table since there are easily several hundred different models on the market.)

Ms. Lunardini added that Virgin America would like to perform these tests, but the current guidelines make it “prohibitively expensive, especially for an airline with a relatively small fleet that is always in the air on commercial flights like ours.”

But, hopefully, a better, more efficient process can be found, and people will actually be able to use these devices on airplanes that aren't just over 10,000 feet...

from the spark-up-the-lawyers dept

John Fenderson was the first of a few of you to send in a link (via Slashdot) to the story of how SPARC, the computer architecture company owned by Sun, is threatening SparkFun over trademark infringement claims. SparkFun is an electronics shop, which sells components and kits and the like. The two are pretty different. This whole situation apparently was "sparked" (heh heh) when SparkFun applied for its own trademark, at which point SPARC sought to block the trademark application. From there, they went on to sending a cease & desist. The folks at SparkFun do a nice job breaking down why the two marks are entirely different, and why even Sun employees seem to have no trouble understanding the difference between the two. This seems like yet another case of overly aggressive trademark enforcement, just because some lawyers feel the need to oppose anything that might conceivably be considered even close to similar.

from the am-I-missing-something? dept

The WSJ is running an article about some guys in Spain who claim to have patented an algorithm that can detect if an electronic device is in "standby mode" and cut the power. The issue, of course, is that plenty of electronic appliances and gadgets don't really turn off. Instead, they continue to draw power even if switched "off." In reality, they're in standby mode, and continue to draw power. Some estimates say that all of these devices drawing power represent 10% of power usage, and in some techie areas, such as here in Silicon Valley, some estimates say that 26% of power usage comes from such "standby" devices. Perhaps I'm missing something, but what needs to be patented to simply tell these devices to actually turn off, rather than put themselves in standby mode? There's often a reason why these devices go into standby, rather than truly turn off, and removing that ability may end up causing more problems than it solves.

from the given-enough-time,-anything-is-possible dept

Sony's attempts at a turnaround have been pretty slowgoing, but their latest quarterly results -- showing profits double last year's -- generated some enthusiasm that things were on the right track. Although some parts of the company's business have picked up, the biggest factor in the increased profits was a weakening yen, which boosted the value of overseas sales. Investors shouldn't discount the currency effect, but they do have some other reasons to be upbeat: the company's movie unit is doing well, and its Sony Ericsson mobile phone joint venture continues to grow its market share. While the electronic business overall is looking healthier, Sony's TV unit is still underperforming, and the gaming business is still in the can. Sony's video-game unit boosted its sales by 60 percent over the same quarter last year, which is great, except that its losses grew as well, partly because it's still selling the PS3 for less than it costs to build. The game unit got a new boss a little while ago, but it doesn't yet look like he's making a lot of progress. Sony announced a price cut for the US on one PS3 model, and also said it will deliver a new high-end version and a load of new games. But it's hard to see those small changes making a big difference in terms of getting the mass market to buy into the PS3, particularly when you contrast Sony's strategy to that of Nintendo, whose business is booming. Still, Sony's problems are far from solved -- but it is showing some signs of life.

from the cheap-enough? dept

As Wal-Mart continues its push into consumer electronics, the company has announced plans to sell a stripped down Windows PC at a discount price. While it will run Vista, the rest of the software will be open source (Open Office will be pre-installed instead of Microsoft Office), and, perhaps surprisingly, it will be completely free of crapware, an issue that's been getting a lot of attention lately. There are a number of problems, however. The box won't have much processing power, which is really bad news, considering the demands of Vista. Furthermore, this basic concept has been tried many times before. While it seems appealing, in theory, to completely strip down a computer and sell it at a discount, consumers have never really jumped at the idea. Name brand machines can be had so cheaply, much of the time, that there really isn't much value as there would first seem in Wal-Mart's approach.

from the store-brand-soda dept

Despite manufacturing plenty of the most recognizable electronics products in the world, and making plenty of money, the names of most Taiwanese contract manufacturers aren't familiar to consumers. For instance, Hon Hai Precision Industry generated revenues of more than $26 billion last year by making products for Apple, Dell, HP and other companies. But the Taiwanese firms are increasingly trying to leverage their experience and expertise by establishing their own consumer brands and using them to boost their product margins. Contract manufacturing is a low-margin, volume based business: for instance, one analyst says contract manufacturers of laptops have 3-5% margins; compare that to the 40% or more Apple enjoys on iPods. But growing the brands can be a tricky proposition, and not just because the companies are looking to enter new and unfamiliar consumer markets. The problem is that these companies are looking to become competitors to their biggest customers: for instance High Tech Computer, which makes mobile phones for a variety of companies, is building up its HTC consumer brand, and competing with clients like HP and Palm in the process. Some are trying to get around this by splitting off their consumer operations from their contract-manufacturing businesses, such as Acer did successfully several years ago. Still, that's not the only obstacle. Getting the consumer marketing right remains a big issue -- particularly when the new consumer brands are competing against companies for which marketing, not manufacturing, is a specialty.